So, theoretically, in this situation, are there any legal recourses/ implications in this situation? Would be very obliged if any legal beagle had any thoughts on this? I've been deliberately unclear about my role/ relationship to all concerned, as I'd hate to be responsible for jeopardizing anything further down the line for anyone involved.
If a company had made it obligatory for a disabled employee to do an Occupational Health full assessment and then, having had a very detailed and comprehensive report, are going against many/ most of the recommendations.
They appear to have eagerly adopted the work monitoring and tracking recommendations, which were put in to improve visibility of productivity. However, they do not appear to have taken on board any of the other recommendations which were meant to allow better communication, better productivity, as well as safeguarding the employee against situations that would cause deterioration on the employees condition.
Some have been ignored, some have been argued against (don't see the point of, disagree with the need etc), some have been actioned in a way to keep the tracking element but lose the other elements, and lastly, some have been 'actioned' in terms of being agreed, yet haven't happened/ opposite has happened.
So where does that leave the employee? legally but also next steps in terms how to sort this mess out?
In this situation I would be worried that it's sliding in the direction of breaking down a workable relationship and it would turn adversarial fast. This is not the outcome wanted (at all), so any advice on trying to engage the company hoping for this to be resolved... but good to know the legal interpretations too as may give the employee some confidence.
Would repeated incidences of the exact opposite being done would be evidence of discrimination? Or not as these were 'reasonable adjustments' suggested, so a lack of positive discrimination rather than 'real' discrimination... Or does that actually make it more discriminatory as they've been told exactly what would help and now cannot claim ignorance?
And would this ongoing situation count as constructive dismissal? I'm a bit confused as I'm assuming following an OH advice isn't something they legally have to do, but it's pretty awful (& soul destroying) for the employee involved - their colleagues and bosses (of many years standing) have read the report, had meetings about it, paid lip service to some of it, but in daily practice are doing the exact opposite.
The adjustments are counter company culture, though in another environment would probably be part of normal working practise. But i guess the company could claim they arent 'reasonable' suggestions for them to make. Actually, i suspect its more than that, having a disabled person in their company is massively against company culture, and its only happened because an employee has become disabled whilst employed by them.
The adjustments do require very small but essential amounts of effort on the company's / managers parts, eg a weekly phone call / contact points discussing scheduling together to ensure that info is shared and better planning can be done (better for the company in terms of getting work done, and better for employee as won't make that person ill through because they can't predict amount of work or time needed).
At the end of the day, the employee desperately wants to keep the job. No payout would be worth the long term impact of this disabled person losing their career and income. But I'm worried that the company are either
A. trying to push the person out
B. are unwilling to change whatever the cost to another persons well being or ability to work, so are being passive agressive and hoping the problem will evaporate
Is it even possible to see a C. Join together with disabled employee to create a mutually beneficial arrangement which requires a little change and consideration from both to make it work?
Anyway, wondered if anyone had any guidance?
Thanks in advance 